Rod Blagojevich: Not Guilty

It is impossible when covering a trial as a journalist not to start thinking like a juror. The jobs are not all that different to begin with: sifting facts, weighing sides, judging trustworthiness, trying to be objective about it all. But now that the Rod Blagojevich trial is over, John R. Bohrer can't do any more of his in-depth, blow-by-blow reporting for The Politics Blog. (At least until there's a verdict later this week.) So we asked to him write like a juror, instead.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The moment that did it for me came last week, late in the scant two days of defense in the two-month trial of Rod Blagojevich. One of the assistant U.S. attorneys (aka 'Bald Guy No. 1') was cross-examining the ex-governor's brother, Robert, talking hypotheticals. He wanted to know: Would it have been wrong for someone to walk into the governor's office, drop a bag containing a hundred grand on the desk, and ask to be appointed to the Senate?

More From Esquire

"[Rod] would tell the guy to pick up the money and walk out with it," Rob shot back.

That was surprising. The answer was not what the prosecutor had expected — it didn't even address the question he had asked. He was trying to corner the Blagojeviches into admitting that it would have been wrong, then nailing them for engaging in something tantamount to it.

But the government couldn't close the deal. And that's the main reason why I'm voting to acquit.

Don't get me wrong:I hate Rod Blagojevich. He is a blowhard and a jerk. A terrible governor who loved the spotlight more than he loved the people of Illinois. But is he a crook worthy of the federal penitentiary? Worthy of all these expenses to investigate, indict, and imprison him?

I'll hand it to the prosecution on one of these charges: It does seem like he stone-cold lied to the FBI when they questioned him about whether he mixed state business with fundraising. But what do you expect him to say? All these guys operate with a wink and a nod.

But there were no bags of cash. Nobody got shoved up against a wall and had his pockets turned out. The government caught the Blagos talking deals on the phone, but in politics, that's what you do. Hell, in any business, that's what you do. And the prosecution has failed to show that the Blagojeviches did anything more than shoot the breeze. And when they even thought about doing more than that (and all the prosecution has proved are that they had those thoughts), their Ivy League lawyers assured them it was kosher — no crime to plot, only to act.

The feds started looking into the governor in 2004. Four years of surveillance, of persecution and this is all they've got? I mean, I'm glad the guy is no longer governor, but who could withstand that kind of scrutiny and come out looking spotless? And the only reason, so they claim, that the government doesn't have any hard evidence on him is that they had to swoop in before he could do any real damage — after four years of watching him, mind you. Give me a break!

In his closing argument, Bald Guy No. 1 told us, "The governor of the state of Illinois cannot exchange taking some state action for some personal benefit like money or a campaign contribution. You do — that's a bribe." Except in no instance did the government prove that they made such agreements. Later, another prosecutor (Bald Guy No. 2) tells us that Blagojevich was smart enough to know not to explicitly make the ask.

So the prosecution is telling us that legal fundraisers and legal campaign contributions don't grease the wheels on tax-funded projects all over the country, every single day of the week? But that when the Blagos do it it's a crime? Please.

We came here with the impression that the governor was on a political crime spree. They impeached him in Springfield pretty quickly. He was a disgrace to our state, a blight on our body politic. We heard it over and over. He was dirty, and we all knew it.

So we just waited for the prosecution to prove it to us jurors. That's their job. But what did they deliver? The Blagojeviches saying naughty words — words that the Baldies won't even say out loud — and making vengeful wishes that were never put into action. Embarrassing, yes. But crapmouth is not a crime.

They indicted his brother. What for? He was around for four months. The government had been investigating Rod for as long as I went to college. Meanwhile, the actual convicted crooks who worked for this administration are getting off light, all because they got on the stand for the prosecution. And Robert Blagojevich, who lives in Nashville, gets collared for spending four months on his brother's speed-dial. This all smacks of vindictiveness, not prosecution.

Which is another reason why I'm voting to let the governor go. Could they have convinced me of a few crimes that he committed? You bet. But to throw the book at him like this, interpreting every fishy thing he did into a new scurrilous charge? Sure, much of it is close to criminal, but close isn't good enough in law.

I think that even the prosecutors know it. It seems like they've been losing confidence every day of this trial, especially in regard to convicting Robert, who barely merits a mention. There's sort of a lame attempt to sully him during closing, when Bald Guy No. 1 says, "He lied to you. He could not admit that he knew what his brother was talking about was fundraising." Yes, fundraising! Not kickbacks or cash bribes — because the prosecution knows it hasn't proven that's what was going on.

I think it knows something else, too: They've lost me. At one point in the defense's closing statement yesterday, Blago's boisterous lawyer pointed at the prosecution and shouted, "Come on! These are the feds! And this is what they bring you? Come on!"

One of those feds stood up and objected to being referred to directly. Not surprising. I wouldn't want my name attached to this fiasco, either.